ASSET INTEGRITY INTELLIGENCE

OBSERVATIONS ON FLAW TOLERANCE AND

BRITTLE FRACTURE: THE EFFECT OF POST WELD
HEAT TREATMENT
PHILLIP E. PRUETER, PE, Principal Engineer and Team Leader - Advanced Analysis at
Equity Engineering Group

VOLUME 24, ISSUE 1

JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2018
OBSERVATIONS ON FLAW TOLERANCE AND
BRITTLE FRACTURE : THE EFFECT OF POST
WELD HEAT TREATMENT
BY: PHILLIP E. PRUETER, PE, Principal Engineer and Team Leader - Advanced Analysis at Equity Engineering Group

INTRODUCTION
Post weld heat treatment (PWHT) can have a significant influ-
ence on the risk for brittle fracture in welded components.
Furthermore, this topic is particularly relevant given the recent
changes in PWHT requirements for P-No. 1 carbon steel materials
in the 2014 Edition of ASME B31.3, Process Piping [1]. Specifically,
PWHT is no longer a mandatory requirement for any wall thick-
ness provided that multi-pass welding is employed for thick-
nesses greater than 3/16 of an inch and a minimum preheat of
200°F is applied for thicknesses greater than 1 inch. Fracture
mechanics calculations have shown that the lack of a mandatory
PWHT requirement for thicker carbon steel components may
result in a significantly increased risk for brittle fracture failures
due to near-yield level weld residual stresses. Given the concern Figure 1. Stress Relaxation in Carbon Steel as a Function of PWHT Hold
throughout industry regarding the potential for brittle fracture Temperature and Time [7].
failures, PWHT guidance to address potential issues arising from
the change in the 2014 edition as cited previously, is examined in
this article, and commentary on the potential reduction in frac- Plastic strains then develop and during the cooling process, ten-
ture toughness due to PWHT is provided based on a review of sile residual stresses are induced in areas near the weld deposit
published literature. due to the restraint of the adjacent (colder) base metal. These
residual stresses increase the likelihood for crack initiation and
This article summarizes aspects of recently published Reference
propagation and depending on the process conditions and service
[2], where a rigorous approach to generate impact test exemp-
environment, may increase the risk of stress corrosion cracking,
tion curves and to determine appropriate Charpy impact test
fatigue cracking, and ultimately brittle fracture.
temperatures by establishing separate as-welded and PWHT
curves is presented. This approach permits direct comparison of To reduce the probability of these failure modes in pressure ves-
flaw tolerance for as-welded and PWHT components using the sels and piping systems, PWHT is often employed as a means
Fracture Toughness Master Curve (Master Curve) as documented of stress relief for carbon and low alloy steels. The WRC Book,
in recently published Welding Research Council (WRC) Bulletin Weldability of Steels [7], describes PWHT as being accomplished by
562 [3]. The increased overall propensity for brittle fracture in heating a welded structure to a temperature range high enough
as-welded components versus PWHT components is clearly high- to reduce the yield strength of the steel to a small fraction of its
lighted using this methodology. Furthermore, the Master Curve, magnitude at ambient temperature. Since the material can no
in conjunction with the elastic-plastic fracture mechanics meth- longer sustain the weld residual stress level, it undergoes plastic
odologies described in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness-For-Service deformation until the stresses are relaxed (with some amount
(API 579) [4] provides a means to quantify the crack driving force of additional relaxation due to creep occurring if post-heating is
associated with weld residual stress using modern fracture continued for longer hold times). Figure 1 shows the substantial
mechanics. Lastly, commentary on the appropriateness of the relaxation of residual stress in carbon steels as a function of tem-
current ASME B31.3 PWHT requirements is offered, and observa- perature for three different hold times.
tions on the consequence of using weld preheat in lieu of PWHT,
As discussed in WRC Bulletin 452 [8], PWHT of carbon and low
as permitted by the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC) [5],
alloy steels is typically performed below the lower critical trans-
are provided.
formation temperature. The lower and upper critical transforma-
PWHT FUNDAMENTALS tion temperatures designate where the crystal structure of steel
Weld residual stresses in pressure retaining equipment are an begins and finally completes a change from body-centered-cubic
artifact of highly localized transient heat input that occurs during to face-centered-cubic upon heating and the reverse effect upon
the welding process. As discussed in Reference [6], weld resid- cooling. Additionally, PWHT can have both beneficial and detri-
ual stresses are the result of internal forces occurring without mental effects for pressure vessel and piping components. Three
any external forces when the heating of the weld area relative to primary benefits of PWHT are recognized: tempering, relaxation
the adjacent material experiences restrained thermal expansion. of residual stresses, and hydrogen removal. Other benefits such

2 Inspectioneering Journal JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2018

as avoidance of hydrogen induced cracking, dimensional stability,
and improved ductility, toughness, and corrosion resistance in
some materials result from the main benefits. Contrarily, PWHT
is known to degrade toughness in some steels. As highlighted in
Reference [7], the effect of PWHT on notch toughness of weld
metals varies widely according to material composition, strength
level, flux, heat input, and the target temperature and hold time
of PWHT. Contradictions also occur in published toughness data
due to different experimental parameters and the overall scatter
in measured data.
THE INFLUENCE OF PWHT ON MATERIAL
PROPERTIES
Several publications examine the influence of PWHT on mate-
rial properties. WRC Bulletin 59 [9] is an early publication that
discusses the potential degradation of notch toughness in weld-
ments due to stress relief. Additionally, WRC Bulletin 302 [10] Figure 2. T he Effect of PWHT on CVN Energy for SA-516-70 as a Function of
indicates that carbon steels can experience a progressive loss of Temperature for Different Stress Relief Conditions [11].
notch toughness for longer PWHT hold times and higher tem-
peratures. WRC Bulletin 481 [11] offers an in-depth study into the
effect of PWHT on material properties and notch toughness for
A516 carbon steel. Figure 2 (from Reference [11]) shows the effect
of PWHT on Charpy-V Notch (CVN) energy for SA-516-70 as a
function of temperature for different stress relief conditions. This
figure highlights the overall trend that toughness degradation is
anticipated for longer hold times and higher PWHT tempera-
tures. ASME B31.3 [1] PWHT guidance requires a hold tempera-
Figure 3. Impact Test Requirement Multiplier for Normalized Carbon Steel
ture of 1100°F-1200°F for carbon steels with a hold time of 1 hour/
(Test Temperatures Below -40°F) [11].
inch of thickness (for wall thickness up to 2 inches).
Another concept introduced in WRC Bulletin 481 [11] is required
impact test temperature multipliers based on PWHT tempera-
ture and hold time. Figure 3 shows recommended impact test in lethal service, or Category M components in ASME B31.3 [1],
requirement multipliers for normalized carbon steel (for test tem- (including vessels containing combustible substances where a
peratures below -40°F). Fundamentally, this matrix suggests that leak could produce a vapor cloud type of safety issue). This docu-
required impact test energy should be multiplied by a constant ment also references an EPRI report [14] that suggests a reduction
based on PWHT temperature and hold time, with multipliers in PWHT requirements for P No. 1 steels, based on a limited set
increasing for higher temperatures and longer hold times. For of impact test data for base, weld, and HAZ test specimens up to
typical PWHT temperatures and hold times for piping compo- 1.5 inches in thickness. These documents are referenced as back-
nents, the factor could be as low as 1.25. Furthermore, as discussed ground information for the ballot to revise PWHT requirements
in Reference [11], these multipliers are believed to be conservative. in the 2014 edition of ASME B31.3 [1]. Notably, no fracture mechan-
ics calculations to evaluate the effect of weld residual stress on
WRC Bulletin 371 [12] also investigates the effects of PWHT on
crack driving force, and ultimately brittle fracture, for as-welded
the mechanical properties of thermo-mechanical control process
construction vs. PWHT materials are included in References [13,
(TMCP) steels. This study shows that for lower carbon equiva-
14]. Additional discussion of PWHT effects on material properties
lences, PWHT does not generally degrade notch toughness. In
is given in Reference [2].
fact, Reference [7] indicates that for carbon and low-alloy steels,
the toughness of the heat affected zone (HAZ) following PWHT
FRACTURE MECHANICS METHODOLOGY
is slightly increased for 0.15% carbon and considerably toughened
The use of the Fracture Toughness Master Curve (Master Curve) in
for 0.25% carbon.
conjunction with the elastic-plastic fracture mechanics method-
An ASME STP document by Spaeder et al. [13] states "The ASME ology described in API 579 [4] provides a way to generate modern
Code should limit the mandate for a PWHT to those situations impact test exemption curves anchored in state-of-the-art frac-
where there is a benefit to the service performance of the ves- ture mechanics. This approach employs the Failure Assessment
sel. This requirement is especially applicable to steels produced Diagram (FAD) for the evaluation of crack-like flaws in compo-
to relatively high carbon content, which are found in older ves- nents. The FAD method (summarized in Figure 4) was adopted
sels in need of repair." This document goes on to suggest that the in API 579 [4] because it provides a technically-based approach to
removal of mandatory PWHT should also apply for steels used determine the acceptability of a component with a crack-like flaw.

JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2018 Inspectioneering Journal 3

 Figure 4. Failure Assessment Diagram Consistent with API 579 [4].
The driving force for failure is measured by two distinct criteria:
unstable fracture and limit load. Linear-elastic fracture typically
controls failure in cracked components fabricated from a brit-
tle material and plastic collapse at a limit load typically controls
failure if the component is fabricated from a material with high
toughness (high ductility). Elastic-plastic fracture occurs between
these two extremes. In the analysis of crack-like flaws, the results
from a stress analysis, stress intensity factor, limit load solution,
material strength, and fracture toughness are combined to calcu-
late a toughness ratio (Kr) and a load ratio (Lr) for primary stress.
These two quantities represent the coordinates of a point that is
plotted on a two-dimensional FAD to determine acceptability. If
the assessment point is on or below the FAD curve, the assumed
crack-like flaw is considered to be acceptable.
The Master Curve works well in the ductile-brittle transition
region, where many pressure vessels and piping systems con-
structed to the ASME Codes operate. Furthermore, the Master
Curve does not require a fracture toughness-to-Charpy impact
energy correlation and incorporates probability of failure into
the fracture toughness calculation. Additionally, the reference
transition temperature can be correlated to the ASME reference
4 Inspectioneering Journal JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2018
temperature. This permits the use of the existing ASME material
categorization by exemption curve designation (i.e., A, B, C and
D). Lastly, The Master Curve can be used to account for the loss in
fracture toughness of a material due to the service environment
and is supported by ASTM Standard E1921 [15]. The technical back-
ground has also been fully documented by Wallin [16]. Additional
details on the FAD-based fracture mechanics approach (including
commentary on the Master curve and limitations associated with
the current ASME impact tests exemption curves) are offered in
References [2-4].
PWHT EFFECTS ON BRITTLE FRACTURE
The weld residual stress guidance in the 2016 edition of API 579
[4] indicates that weld residual stress, perpendicular to the weld
seam, relaxes 80% from PWHT. Similarly, for residual stress par-
allel to the weld seam, a 70% relaxation in residual stress is pre-
dicted due to PWHT. To highlight the influence of weld residual
stress on the propensity for brittle fracture, a set of impact test
exemption curves are generated for t/4 and t/8 (1/4 and 1/8 of com-
ponent wall thickness, respectively) reference flaws for different
ASME material categories (A, B, C, and D designations), with
and without PWHT. These curves reflect the fracture mechanics
Figure 5. Exemption Curves for a t/4 Reference Flaw Generated Using the Figure 6. Exemption Curves for a t/8 Reference Flaw Generated Using the
Master Curve. Master Curve.

approach described above and produce a minimum allowable additional commentary on the current ASME impact test exemp-
temperature (MAT) to provide protection against brittle fracture tion curves and their limitations.
as a function of wall thickness. Figure 5 compares exemption
Figures 5 and 6 highlight the significant effect of weld residual
curves (as-welded vs. PWHT) for a t/4 reference flaw, and Figure
stress (and PWHT) on MAT to provide protection against brittle
6 compares exemption curves for a t/8 reference flaw.
fracture for different component thicknesses. To offer some per-
A 5% probability of failure is assumed in all cases, and primary spective on the effect of PWHT, for a 1.5 inch thick, Curve B com-
stress is assumed to be 2/3 of material yield strength (this corre- ponent (i.e. SA-516-70) with a flaw depth of 1/4 the wall thickness,
sponds to a typical design stress from internal pressure), where the difference in MAT for as-welded vs. PWHT is approximately
the yield strength equals 40 ksi. The reference flaw is assumed to +55°F. The same comparison for a flaw depth of 1/8 the wall thick-
be inside surface breaking (semi-elliptical with a length-to-depth ness is approximately +75°F. Additional impact test exemption
ratio of 6:1) and oriented longitudinally in a cylindrical shell weld, curves corresponding to different material properties are pro-
remote from structural discontinuities. Appropriate weld residual vided in WRC Bulletin 562 [3].
stress for full-penetration welded locations in accordance with
Annex 9.D of API 579 [4] is considered. These comparisons show that weld residual stress is a signifi-
cant contributor to brittle fracture and represents a substantial
The ASME Section VIII Division 1 (VIII-1) [17] impact test exemp-
crack-driving force. While PWHT, in general, may cause a reduc-
tion curves are shown in these figures for reference (dotted lines
tion in fracture toughness for some carbon and low alloy steels,
in the background). ASME VIII-1 [17] permits a 30°F reduction in
the reduction in toughness would have to be significant in order
MAT relative to a given exemption curve to account for PWHT.
to outweigh the beneficial effect that PWHT has on relaxation
ASME B31.3 [1] impact test exemption curves are very similar to
of weld residual stresses (and resulting increased resistance
VIII-1 [17], except they are capped at a thickness of 3 inches and no
to brittle fracture). To this end, it is unlikely that a marginal
reduction in MAT is applied for stress relief. In contrast to VIII-1
decrease in fracture toughness from PWHT would justify the
[17] and B31.3 [1] and similar to Figures 5 and 6, ASME Section VIII
omission of stress relief for carbon steels, based on modern
Division 2 (VIII-2) [18] provides two distinct sets of exemption
fracture mechanics.
curves; that is, separate curves are given for as-welded and PWHT
construction. The VIII-2 [18] exemption curves are anchored in Lastly, given the concern throughout industry for potential brittle
modern fracture mechanics, except the Master Curve was not fracture failures in pressure vessels and piping systems, and in
used as the basis for fracture toughness. Reference [2] provides contrast to the current ASME B31.3 [1] guidance, the Engineering

JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2018 Inspectioneering Journal 5

Figure 7. 4
 -Pass Computational Weld Simulation Fusion Boundary
and Weld Passes.
Equipment and Materials Users Association (EEMUA) is currently
funding the development of new impact test exemption curves
and Charpy impact test temperature guidance that uses the mod-
ern fracture mechanics methodology described in this article. The
EEMUA intends to incorporate these updated exemption curves
and impact test procedures into a new publication for establish-
ing equipment minimum design metal temperature (MDMT)
as a function of component thickness for both as-welded and
PWHT construction.
THE EFFECT OF WELD PREHEAT
An explicit finite element analysis (FEA) weld simulation case
study of a 4-pass weld is carried out to evaluate the effects of
weld preheat on projected weld residual stress. NBIC [5] permits
the use of preheat in lieu of PWHT for P-No. 1 (groups 1, 2, and 3)
and P-No. 3 (groups 1 and 2) and states that "competent techni-
cal advice shall be obtained from the manufacturer of the pres-
sure-retaining item or from another qualified source, such advice
being especially necessary if the alternative is to be used in highly
stressed areas, if service conditions are conducive to stress cor-
rosion cracking, if hydrogen embrittlement is possible, if the
component operates in the creep regime, or if the alternative is
being considered for on-stream repairs or hot tapping on piping
systems." This alternative approach recommends that the weld
area be preheated and maintained at a minimum temperature
of 300°F; however, for P-No. 1 materials, the preheat temperature
may be reduced to 175°F. Additionally, this alternative approach
is limited to SMAW, GMAW, FCAW, or GTAW welds, and carbon
equivalence must be less than 0.40. The goal of this FEA weld sim-
ulation is to quantify the relaxation in predicted weld residual
stress due to a permissible, NBIC [5] weld preheat.
This weld simulation uses an advanced cyclic plasticity mate-
rial model, outlined in Reference [19], with elevated temperature
physical properties that neglect solid state phase transforma-
tion (see References [2, 20] for additional discussion). Thermal-
mechanical axisymmetric FEA is employed for this set-in nozzle
Figure 8. Through-Wall Longitudinal Stress Distributions from FEA (ID to
OD) in the Nozzle Neck With and Without Preheat.
with a shell radius-to-thickness or R/t ratio of 50 and a nozzle R/t
ratio of 10. An advanced subroutine that lays each weld pass down
sequentially is utilized. A case with no preheat (weld region initial
conditions correspond to ambient temperature) and a case with
a 300°F preheat (consistent with NBIC [5] guidance) are investi-
gated. Figure 7 shows the simulated weld fusion boundary (gray
contour region), as well as each pass that is added sequentially
into the non-linear FEA model.
Figure 8 shows through-wall longitudinal stress profile (psi) in
the nozzle neck adjacent to the weld deposit for the model with no
preheat and the model with a 300°F preheat. The through-thick-
ness dimension is normalized. This comparison indicates that a
300°F preheat has very minimal effect on through-wall residual
stress profiles, with essentially negligible difference in the nozzle
neck (a roughly a 5-10% difference in stress is observed in the head
adjacent to the weld deposit). For additional comparisons relating
to this model, refer to Reference [2].
These comparisons confirm that performing preheat is likely not
comparable to PWHT in terms of stress relaxation behavior and
overall remaining weld residual stresses (even though a temper-
ing effect may still be achieved). Therefore, it is important to note
that simply conforming to NBIC [5] guidance and implementing
preheat in lieu of PWHT is not generally recommended, particu-
larly for thicker walled components, equipment in low-tempera-
ture service that may be prone to brittle fracture, or for pressure
vessels or piping in aggressive service environments that may be
prone to damage mechanisms such as fatigue or stress corrosion
cracking.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The literature review and the modern fracture mechanics meth-
ods discussed in this article indicate that the recent removal of
a mandatory PWHT requirement for P No. 1 carbon steels (of
any thickness) in ASME B31.3 [1] could potentially increase the
likelihood of brittle fracture. Based on state-of-the-art fracture
mechanics, weld residual stresses reflect a significant crack

driving force (and a meaningful contributor to brittle fracture). As
described in WRC Bulletin 562 [3], impact test exemption curves
generated using the Fracture Toughness Maser Curve in conjunc-
tion with the elastic-plastic fracture mechanics methods of API
579 [4] show that minimum allowable temperature (MAT) mag-
nitudes to provide protection against brittle fracture, for compo-
nents with and without PWHT, are significantly different. For an
assumed reference flaw, MAT values for as-welded components
can be noticeably higher relative to an equivalent component that
received PWHT. This fracture mechanics approach is currently
being leveraged by the EEMUA to develop updated MDMT guid-
ance for pressure equipment.
Additionally, any reduction in fracture toughness due to stress
relief would likely have to be significant in order to outweigh the
beneficial effect that PWHT has on the relaxation of weld resid-
ual stresses. Material chemistry can be controlled (for example,
regulating carbon equivalence) to minimize the potential for
notch toughness degradation during PWHT in carbon steels.
Also, PWHT provides increased resistance to brittle fracture and
other damage mechanisms such as fatigue cracking or stress cor-
rosion cracking due to this residual stress relaxation. To this end,
omitting the PWHT requirement for thicker carbon steel com-
ponents is not generally recommended, unless flaw tolerance is
well-understood (based on fracture mechanics calculations) for
as-welded construction and more detailed inspection is carried
out at fabrication and throughout the life-cycle of a given compo-
nent to rule out the presence of flaws at or near critical locations.
Finally, the results of a 4-pass, computational weld simulation at a
nozzle junction are summarized in this article. The intent of this
case study is to highlight the effect that a 300°F preheat has on
weld residual stresses compared to a weld with no preheat. NBIC
[5] permits the use of this type of preheat in lieu of PWHT. This
simulation shows that preheat has a minimal effect on calculated
residual stresses (even though it may provide some tempering).
Based on this analysis, using preheat in lieu of PWHT is not gen-
erally recommended following component alterations or repairs
due to increased susceptibility to brittle fracture or other damage
mechanisms that are exacerbated by the presence of high residual
stresses. In conclusion, weld preheat as specified in NBIC [5] does
not strictly represent a substitute for PWHT from a weld residual
stress relaxation standpoint. n
For more information on this subject or the author, please email
us at inquiries@inspectioneering.com.
4. API, 2016. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness-For-Service. The American Petroleum
Institute, Washington D.C.
5. NBIC, 2015. National Board Inspection Code: Part 3 - Repairs and Alterations.
The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, Columbus, Ohio.
6. Radaj, D., 1992. Heat Effects of Welding. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
7. Stout, R., 1987. Weldability of Steels, 4 ed. Welding Research Council, New York.
8. McEnerney, J., and Dong, P., 2000. Welding Research Council Bulletin 452:
Recommended Practices for Local Heating of Welds in Pressure Vessels.
Welding Research Council, New York.
9. Sagan, S., and Campbell, H., 1960. Welding Research Council Bulletin 59: Factors
Which Affect Low-Alloy Weld- Metal Notch-Toughness. Welding Research
Council, New York.
10. Stout, R., 1985. Welding Research Council Bulletin 302: Postweld Heat
Treatment of Pressure Vessels. Welding Research Council, New York.
11. Orie, K., Roper, C., and Upitis, E., 2003. Welding Research Council Bulletin 481:
The Effect of Post Weld Heat Treatment and Notch Toughness on Welded Joints
and on Normalized Base Metal Properties of A516 Steel. Welding Research
Council, New York.
12. Japan Pressure Vessel Research Council, 1992. Welding Research Council
Bulletin 371: Characterization of PWHT Behavior of 500 N/mm2 Class TMCP
Steels. Welding Research Council, New York.
13. Spaeder, C., Doty, W., and O’Donnell, J., 2011. STP-PT- 033: Degradation of Notch
Toughness By a Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT). American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York.
14. McCracken, S., 2009. EPRI 1019171: Welding and Repair Technology Center:
Evaluation of Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT) Exemption Thickness
Limitations. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
15. ASTM, 2016. ASTM E1921 Standard Test Method for Determination of
Reference Temperature, To, for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
16. Wallin, K., 2011. Fracture Toughness of Engineering Materials. EMAS
Publishing, United Kingdom.
17. ASME, 2015. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII Rules for
Construction of Pressure Vessels, Division 1. The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York.
18. ASME, 2015. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII Rules for
Construction of Pressure Vessels, Division 2 Alternative Rules. The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
19. Dewees, D., Prueter, P., and Kummari, S., 2014. “A Continued Evaluation of the
Role of Material Hardening Behavior for the NeT TG1 and TG4 Specimens”. In
ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference. PVP2014-28843.
20. Dewees, D., Prueter, P., Kummari, S., Brown, R., Thome, T., Smith, K., Bifano,
M., Panzarella, C., and Osage, D., 2015. Development of Revised Weld Residual
Stress Guidance for Fitness-For-Service Assessments in API 579- 1/ASME FFS-1.
Welding Research Council, New York.

REFERENCES
1. A
 SME, 2014. ASME B31.3 - Code for Pressure Piping: Process Piping. The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
2. Prueter, P.E., Smith, K., Macejko, B., and Shipley, K.S., “Commentary on Recent
Changes in ASME B31.3 Post Weld Heat Treatment Requirements and the
Effectiveness of Weld Preheat.” In 2017 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference, July 16-20, 2017, Waikoloa, Hawaii, United States, PVP2017-65859.
3. O
 sage, D., Spring, D., Anderson, T., Kummari, S., Prueter, P., and Wallin, K., 2017.
Welding Research Council Bulletin 562: Recommendations for Establishing
the Minimum Pressurization Temperature (MPT) for Equipment. Welding
Research Council, New York.

JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2018 Inspectioneering Journal 7

CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR

PHILLIP E. PRUETER, PE
Phillip E. Prueter, PE is a Principal Engineer and the Advanced Analysis Group Head at
The Equity Engineering Group, Inc., where his responsibilities include providing technical
consulting expertise to the petrochemical, chemical, and nuclear industries. He routinely
uses advanced finite element analysis techniques to support fitness-for-service and design
evaluations and specializes in explicit dynamic analysis, transient thermal-mechanical
fatigue analysis, elevated temperature creep and creep-fatigue simulations, seismic and
natural frequency analysis, and fracture mechanics. He holds a BS and MS in mechanical
engineering, has authored or co-authored more than 20 technical publications, and is a
Registered Professional Engineer in nine states.

8 Inspectioneering Journal JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2018